User talk:Table52

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Table52, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Dweller 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidary[edit]

Hi. I'm not convinced the article will last long, but am prepared to be wrong! You may find this article WP:NOT useful in helping you decide whether/how to defend it against the inevitable tag(s) that I think is coming your way. Just remember that if you do get a tag on the article, follow its instructions, rather than deleting it. That way, you'll avoid accusations of being a vandal. Good luck! --Dweller 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You[edit]

Impressed by your response on the Subsidary talk page. It takes a certain amount of bottle to concede a point like that. I think you'll be a great asset to Wikipedia. Welcome again! --Dweller 16:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Toast, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Portal:Arts constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008[edit]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Luton page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --GazMan7 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Iain Lee, you will be blocked from editing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Sunday Night Show. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I am not so lenient as HexaChord. Persistent vandalism of biographies of living people is not acceptable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Table52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel I was given insufficient time between the last 2 warnings and the ban. Furthermore, I do not feel that Sam as an admin should come along and claim to be less leient- this is clearly double standards and the original warning, not the ban should stand.

Decline reason:

Considering the organized spate of vandalism on that set of articles, I think you were well aware of what you were doing. I've also reviewed the history of this account, and it seems obvious you're clearly not here to edit constructively. I've changed the duration of the block to indefinite. Kuru ^talk 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Table52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was only told that I could be banned all of 10 minutes or so before the ban was made- to upgrade this to an indefinite ban therefore seems very harsh indeed. I was in the mindset that people post all sorts of nonsense on Wiki (as often joked about in the media etc) and yes, I've messed about a few times. But I did not realise this could lead to any sort of ban. Consider me much like someone who's now seen 3 ghosts and realised the error of his ways and won't do it again.

Decline reason:

What can you show to prove that you have truly changed? I'm not entirely convinced that you are here to assist. And your work with BLPs leaves a lot to be desired. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.